AB962 (http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab962&year=2009) (DeLeon) – AMMUNITION SALES RESTRICTIONS
This bill would establish a database and a program administered and maintained by the Department of Justice for licensing handgun ammunition vendors, change the law so no person can transfer more than 50 rounds of handgun ammunition in any month unless he or she is registered as a handgun ammunition vendor. And many more restrictions..............

SB585 (http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=sb585.1&year=2009) (Leno) – GUN SHOW BAN
This bill would prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition at the Cow Palace and would thereby make a violation of that prohibition a misdemeanor. This bill would ban having a gun show at the Cow Palace, which is a state owned facility in the South San Francisco area. If it passes, it will likely be expanded to ban gun shows on any public property, such as fairgrounds, throughout the State. It is a major attack on the right of sportsmen and other firearms owners to assemble, communicate with each other, and to purchase new, used and collectible firearms, accessories and sporting supplies.

Refer to this CAL-ERT (http://www.calnra.com/calerts/calert090309.shtml) at http://www.calnra.com/calerts/calert090309.shtml for more information and to take action. Time is critical as they might try to amend one or both of these bills tomorrow, September 4th.

Sign-up for the CALIFORNIA-ALERT SYSTEM (http://e-govmail.com/cgi-bin/subscribe.cgi?to=nramemberscouncils.com) today!

7x57

09-03-2009, 11:22 PM

There's Paul, burning the midnight oil and posting alerts at 11PM. Got one in the mailbox too.

But the guy at the gun shop assured me the NRA has given up on us! I'm so confused! ;)

7x57

FS00008

09-03-2009, 11:32 PM

Haha, he must know about all of us night owls ;-).

6172crew

09-03-2009, 11:38 PM

One click used on both Paul.:chris:

jdberger

09-03-2009, 11:40 PM

Thanks, Paul, for all the work you do for us....

H Paul Payne

09-03-2009, 11:41 PM

Haha, he must know about all of us night owls ;-).
Whoooooooooo me?

We are down to the crunch-time. If AB962 doesn't get amended by tomorrow, it won't be able to be amended and probably will have a very hard time passing during this part of the legislative session. That's why we must keep up the pressure!

BUT, we are hearing rumors from several sources that certain groups/organizations are trying to cut deals and obtain exemptions for their own programs/interests. So far, we don't know if they are true, but we are watching them very carefully. We'll all see if someone gets an exemption all-of-a-sudden. If that happens, we'll know who sold us out. That's why we must keep up the pressure!

Please send emails now, and make phone calls in the morning.

Paul

sorensen440

09-04-2009, 12:02 AM

Should the one click emails for the senate and the assembly be the same ?

H Paul Payne

09-04-2009, 12:06 AM

Should the one click emails for the senate and the assembly be the same ?
No. They are different bills and they have different addresses and destinations.

Paul

sorensen440

09-04-2009, 12:11 AM

No. They are different bills and they have different addresses and destinations.

Paul
My computer must have been goofing up
It was giving me the same email for either one but now its working

Emails are out and I will make phone calls in the morning

bwiese

09-04-2009, 12:42 AM

Folks,
Keep calling, writing and/or faxing.

That $3 Starbucks coffee break could be spent on some cellphone minutes politiely yammering at legislators.

7x57

09-04-2009, 12:46 AM

Folks,
Keep calling, writing and/or faxing.

That $3 Starbucks coffee break

Gaahhh. If I wanted to do that to coffee beans I'd just use a hand torch.

Wait, you weren't talking about the difference between roasting and carbonizing coffee? Oh, well. :p

7x57

7x57

09-04-2009, 12:56 AM

BUT, we are hearing rumors from several sources that certain groups/organizations are trying to cut deals and obtain exemptions for their own programs/interests.

Hmm. I wish I had your sources. There's a rumor about the Boy Scouts wanting to sell us out for thirty pieces of silver to save their rifle program, which would really suck, but my ears don't reach up to Sacramento where it counts so I don't know if it's bogus or not.

They'd better not--my sportsman's club just donated some money to them, and club members volunteer to teach rifle and such. I'd hate to have to call out the Boy Scouts next time they want a favor, but I've done worse. :mad:

Heh. When calling legislators I knew couldn't care less about the law I tended to tell them that this stupid bill would make it illegal for me to volunteer teach the BSA rifle program. I figured that was a pretty good angle--I'll be annoyed if the rumor is true and it was guys like me that put the idea on the table. :chris:

7x57

6172crew

09-04-2009, 7:30 AM

Does Ed W. Know which law makers need some extra phone calls..or is it all of them still?

6172crew

09-04-2009, 8:29 AM

Paul, this guy has a different email.
http://arc.asm.ca.gov/member/38/?p=email

It went to my spam box

woodsman

09-04-2009, 9:10 AM

Just called the office of Mark Desaulnier to go on record against both bills. I also asked had they had many phone calls to which the response was " in the biggining yes, then it died down and now in the eleventh hour it has quickly picked back up."

I hope our representatives will REPRESENT us.

obeygiant

09-04-2009, 9:41 AM

I know the local chapters are in the works for CGN but can we call in and have them put it on record that Calguns.net with it's membership of 30k+ is in opposition to this bill?

8-Ball

09-04-2009, 10:00 AM

Nice... I've just been contacting the governor and legislature via email when I get a notice from our local NRA chapter president...

This looks easier... just updated my listing

I was already in the system but listed as living in "The Yukon Territory"

weird...

obeygiant

09-04-2009, 10:03 AM

For anyone that did not see the AB962 letter thread it can be found here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=218126)

H Paul Payne

09-04-2009, 10:32 AM

I know the local chapters are in the works for CGN but can we call in and have them put it on record that Calguns.net with it's membership of 30k+ is in opposition to this bill?
Local chapters, 30k+, etc. have little or no effect on the legislators. If it were that easy, the NRA's 300,000 to 400,000 members within California and all of our chapters (aka Members' Councils) would be a factor that would guarantee our victory.

But it doesn't work that way. In fact, that approach works no better than pre-printed form letters and/or petitions.

Very simply stated, what sways the legislators far more than any of that stuff listed above is the INDIVIDUAL calling, writing, emailing, faxing, etc. in his own words. And the more it occurs -- the more impact it has on them.

Paul

obeygiant

09-04-2009, 10:38 AM

Local chapters, 30k+, etc. have little or no effect on the legislators. If it were that easy, the NRA's 300,000 to 400,000 members within California and all of our chapters (aka Members' Councils) would be a factor that would guarantee our victory.

But it doesn't work that way. In fact, that approach works no better than pre-printed form letters and/or petitions.

Very simply stated, what sways the legislators far more than any of that stuff listed above is the INDIVIDUAL calling, writing, emailing, faxing, etc. in his own words. And the more it occurs -- the more impact it has on them.

Paul

Good to know, thank you for the response.

obeygiant

09-04-2009, 10:40 AM

The email address for Senator Gil Cedillo is no longer valid but anyone who would like to contact him via email may do so here (http://legplcms01.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/ContactPopup.aspx?district=SD22) just remember to put in a zip code that is within his district or it will not accept the email. the one I used was the zip for his local office which is 90014

6172crew

09-04-2009, 10:56 AM

The email address for Senator Gil Cedillo is no longer valid but anyone who would like to contact him via email may do so here (http://legplcms01.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/ContactPopup.aspx?district=SD22) just remember to put in a zip code that is within his district or it will not accept the email. the one I used was the zip for his local office which is 90014
Thanks for the heads up!

The email address for Senator Gil Cedillo is no longer valid but anyone who would like to contact him via email may do so here (http://legplcms01.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/ContactPopup.aspx?district=SD22) just remember to put in a zip code that is within his district or it will not accept the email. the one I used was the zip for his local office which is 90014

From ED WORLEY in the State Capitol: The State Assembly has adjourned for labor day with no action on SB585 Gun Show Ban today they will return on Tuesday.

----------------

Please focus your calls against AB962 (in the Senate) today.

Paul

Corky43

09-04-2009, 1:17 PM

Thanks for the list OBEYGIANT!

One of the member of our club drafted this response and I thought it had some good points, I never thought about.

AB962 is a red herring. It accomplishes nothing but Our Government exerting more useless control over its people. It will do nothing to fight crime.

In fact, if AB962 passes, it will severely impact firearms safety training programs and volunteer instructors that teach, among other things:

Refuse To Be A Victim Program
The Women on Target Program
ROTC Programs
Hunter Education Programs
Olympic Programs

It would also impact college competitions and small bore rifle youth programs such as

Boy Scouts
Girl Scouts
4-H

These programs would be prohibited from “transferring“ practice ammunition to the students and team members for training and from ordering special competition grade ammunition from mail or Internet sources.

Let’s enforce the extraordinary number of laws we already have.

Let’s spend the state’s limited budget on things that make a difference.

sorensen440

09-04-2009, 1:21 PM

Thanks for the list OBEYGIANT!

One of the member of our club drafted this response and I thought it had some good points, I never thought about.

AB962 is a red herring. It accomplishes nothing but Our Government exerting more useless control over its people. It will do nothing to fight crime.

In fact, if AB962 passes, it will severely impact firearms safety training programs and volunteer instructors that teach, among other things:

Refuse To Be A Victim Program
The Women on Target Program
ROTC Programs
Hunter Education Programs
Olympic Programs

It would also impact college competitions and small bore rifle youth programs such as

Boy Scouts
Girl Scouts
4-H

These programs would be prohibited from “transferring“ practice ammunition to the students and team members for training and from ordering special competition grade ammunition from mail or Internet sources.

Let’s enforce the extraordinary number of laws we already have.

Let’s spend the state’s limited budget on things that make a difference.
Very good points !

Nodda Duma

09-04-2009, 1:56 PM

Ok just made my first call to a rep's office (in the past I just sent email). Was kind of nervous, but I was pleasantly surprised by the conversation.

I call Roy Ashburn's office and politely stated where I was from and why I was calling. The guy who answered already guessed why I was calling. He agreed that "yeah AB 962 is a bunch of crap". We talked about how of course the criminal's are going to limit their purchases to 50 rounds per month if this thing passed. :rolleyes: Had a nice chat with the guy. He said if only they would trust us with our guns. It was like carrying on a conversation with a fellow CalGunner. Very friendly. :D

-Jason

also sent this out via email to the Senator list above. Note I didn't need to mention anything about ammunition.

I am emailing you to voice my opposition to AB962, and I urge you to do the same. AB 962 would create a huge bureaucracy at a time when California can simply not afford to do so. It would not impact criminals and thugs who do not follow the law anyways, and would only serve to hinder the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families. AB 962 would also further reduce the liberties of Americans living in California.

In addition, this type of law may very well become unconstitutional in near future. It is a certainty that a lawsuit would then be filed to strike down this type of law. The resulting legal fees would cost California taxpayers millions in tax dollars. In the end, the result would have been the same as if you were to vote NO, except that YOU would have saved California millions of dollars in legal fees, and would have the thanks of your California constituents.

It would be much more efficient and cost-effective to reinforce the laws that are currently on the books.

Please vote NO against this nonsense law. Please vote NO against AB 962.

Thanks you,
Your fellow Californian

madmike

09-04-2009, 2:27 PM

My email requests a return receipt, and it's amazing how many of these are "deleted without being read". Politicians suck.

-madmike.

7x57

09-04-2009, 3:09 PM

T
It would also impact college competitions and small bore rifle youth programs such as

Boy Scouts
Girl Scouts
4-H

These programs would be prohibited from “transferring“ practice ammunition to the students and team members for training and from ordering special competition grade ammunition from mail or Internet sources.

Unless they get a special exemption that won't apply to most of us. :mad:

I believe I've found the most effective place to inquire about BSA selling us out for "peace in our time":

Now I'm not the most politically astute person, but here are my guesses about how to go about this:

I would suggest not accusing anyone of anything, just inquire about the rumor and express your displeasure if it were true. The best outcome is that the idea dies as quietly as it started with nothing ever admitted, and we want them to have that easy way out without direct confrontation. They're not our enemy, just a minor player that seems to have been tempted with temporary safety if they'll only switch sides.

If you have a connection with the scouts--are/were a scout, and especially if you volunteer your time and money for them, that's especially good because you're someone they depend on.

I could be wrong, but I doubt BSA is used to getting a bunch of calls about such things as a politician would be. With luck, that means phone calls will have a much bigger effect than on someone who expects to get a certain amount of flack. Besides, fooling around with secret deals suggests vulnerability to pressure. So apply pressure....

7x57

H Paul Payne

09-04-2009, 3:32 PM

Although both the Assembly and Senate have "adjourned" until Tuesday, AB962 and SB585 could be amended -- thereby making it harder for us to kill these bills.

This has just come out of the Capitol:
==============================
September 4, 2009

TO: ALL SENATE AND ASSEMBLY OFFICES

FROM: GREG SCHMIDT
SECRETARY OF THE SENATE

RE: AMENDMENT DEADLINE

Due to issues with theLegislativeDataCenter, the deadline to put amendments over the Senate Desk is now 5:00 P.M. FIRM. NO AMENDMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER 5:00 P.M. TODAY.

==============================

If someone cuts a deal for a last-minute amendment, it will make things really tough for us next week!

This kind of reminds me of our efforts to defeat the "handgun ban" several years ago. AB15, AB1500, we were winning. Then when SB15 was pushed by Senator Polanco, a "gun group" and a "manufacturer" received amendments that exempted THEIR guns and dropped THEIR opposition to SB15. Guess what?!? SB15 passed the THEY weren't affected --- BUT THE REST OF US WERE! AND STILL ARE!!!

Thanks, now of we can get the guys worried about the knives to spend a few minutes talking to the folks who might see things are way.

sorensen440

09-04-2009, 4:37 PM

I got a response from Senator Dave Cox

Thank you for contacting my office to express your opposition to gun
control legislation. I appreciate hearing from you.

My stance on additional gun control legislation has been clear. I have
consistently opposed efforts to restrict the ability of law-abiding
citizens to purchase and legally use firearms.

Several key bills relating to gun control or ownership rights have been
introduced or re-introduced during this legislative session.

Assembly Bill 357 (Knight) would revise state law as it relates to
obtaining a license to carry a concealed weapon. Current law authorizes
the sheriff of a county, "...upon proof that the person applying is of
good moral character, that good cause exists, and that the person
applying satisfies any one of certain conditions..." to issue a license
for the person to carry a concealed handgun. AB 357 would delete the
good cause requirement, and require the sheriff to issue the license if
the other criteria described above are met. As anticipated, AB 357
failed passage in its first hearing in the Assembly Public Safety
Committee on April 21 by a vote of 1-5. Although the bill was granted
reconsideration, it is unlikely that the bill will receive a sufficient
number votes for passage.

Assembly Bill 962 (De Leon), a bill relating to ammunition, is virtually
identical to the final language contained in Assembly Bill 2062 (2008)
and Assembly Bill 362 (2007) by the same author. AB 962 passed the full
Assembly on June 3 by a vote of 42-31 and is currently awaiting a floor
vote before the full Senate.

AB 962 is a far-reaching measure which would prohibit any person not
licensed as a gun dealer to transfer, sell or buy more than 50 pieces of
ammunition in a month. The bill also implements extensive reporting and
record-keeping requirements for all licensed gun dealers who wish to
sell ammunition. The requirements listed in this measure are
impractical and would do more to inconvenience lawful gun owners more
than deter criminals. For this reason, I am opposed to AB 962 as it is
currently written.

Assembly Bill 1167 (Nielsen) "...would deem persons who have a valid
permit or license to carry a concealed handgun issued by another state
or a political subdivision of another state to be authorized to carry a
concealed handgun pursuant to provisions of California law...." and
would similarly "direct the Department of Justice to enter into
reciprocity agreements with other states so that persons licensed in
this state to carry concealed or loaded firearms would be authorized to
do so in those other states." AB 1167 is awaiting a hearing in the
Assembly Public Safety Committee, although no hearing date has been set.
It is likely that this bill will not secure enough votes for passage out
of committee.

Senate Bill 41 (Lowenthal) would impose additional requirements on
firearms dealers to track sales, returns and other transactions and
report them to the California Department of Justice. Additional fees on
dealers are also included in the bill which would likely be passed on to
consumers. SB 41 passed the full Senate on June 1 by a vote of 21-14
and is currently awaiting a floor vote in the Assembly. I voted in
opposition to this bill when it came before me.

Senate Bill 585 (Leno), a bill which would prohibit firearms sales at
the Cow Palace in San Francisco. The language in SB 585 is virtually
identical to the final language contained in Assembly Bill 2498 (Leno)
from the 2007-08 legislative session and would prohibit firearms sales
at the Cow Palace in San Francisco.

SB 585 is an effort to allow the City and/or County of San Francisco to
discriminate against legitimate gun show participants and vendors who
must comply with stringent state regulations affecting licensing, sales,
background checks, liability and other provisions of state law governing
gun shows, although the property in question is owned by the state, not
the county. SB 585 passed the full Senate on June 3 by a vote of 21-18
and is currently awaiting a floor vote in the Assembly. I voted against
this bill when it came before me.

Senate Bill 697 (DeSaulnier) is a re-introduction of Assembly Bill 2235
a bill from the 2007-08 legislative session by the same author relating
to "owner-authorized" handguns. AB 2235 passed the Assembly but was
held under submission in the Senate Appropriations Committee and died
without further action. SB 697 was scheduled for a hearing in the
Senate Public Safety Committee; however, the author has decided to defer
action on the bill until next year.

"Smart gun" technology may be perfected in the future, and "owner
authorized" weapons may one day secure a niche in the marketplace.
However, the potential availability of such weapons for those who wish
to purchase them should not preclude the legal possession, purchase or
transfer of other traditional firearms. For this reason, I am opposed
to SB 697 as written.

Senate Bill 776 (Hancock) would require owners of large-capacity
magazines to register them with the Department of Justice. This bill is
now a two-year bill and will not be acted upon until the Legislature
re-convenes in 2010. I am opposed to this bill as written.

During the 2007-08 legislative session, other gun control-related bills
were approved by the Legislature and signed into law by Governor
Schwarzenegger:

Assembly Bill 821 (Nava) would require the use of non-lead rifle and
handgun ammunition for hunting in certain areas as to reduce the risk of
lead poisoning to the endangered California Condor. While the goal of
protecting the endangered California Condor has merit, in my view the
provisions contained in this bill were excessive and of dubious value.
AB 821 passed from the Senate on September 4, 2007 by a vote of 23 to
15. I voted against the bill at that time. The bill was signed into
law by the Governor on October 13, 2007.

Assembly Bill 1471 (Feuer) would require all handguns sold after January
1, 2010 to include micro-stamped identifying information that would be
transferred to each dispensed bullet cartridge as it was fired.
Technical issues aside, it is my opinion that such a program will not
lead to any significant reduction in gun violence, nor will it increase
conviction rates of gun-related crimes. Moreover, the bill has the
potential to inconvenience and even implicate lawful gun owners whose
guns were stolen and used in the commission of a crime. AB 1471 passed
the Senate on September 6, 2007 by a vote of 21 to 17. I voted in
opposition to the bill at that time. In addition to voting against the
bill, along with my Senate Republican Colleagues I urged the Governor to
veto the bill. Despite our efforts, the Governor signed the legislation
on October 13, 2007.

If you are interested in tracking the progress of current legislation,
you may access the status, votes, bill text and analyses of this and
other legislation from my Senate home page at www.senate.ca.gov/cox (http://www.senate.ca.gov/cox).

Again, thank you for taking the time to relay your views. Please feel
free to communicate with me in the future on other issues of interest.

Sincerely,

DAVE COX
Senator, First District

H Paul Payne

09-04-2009, 4:44 PM

They have just amended AB962, in an attempt to pass it next week.

We all must DOUBLE our phone calls beginning on Tuesday!!

Paul

bulgron

09-04-2009, 4:50 PM

They have just amended AB962, in an attempt to pass it next week.

We all must DOUBLE our phone calls beginning on Tuesday!!

Paul

Why are they so determined to pass this turkey? You'd think that with all the problems this state has, they'd have better things to do than screw around with something that's generating the phonecalls this one is.

7x57

09-04-2009, 4:59 PM

They have just amended AB962, in an attempt to pass it next week.

Grr. OK, I want to see the text of the amendment to see if anyone sold us out in return for the "safety" of wearing the Star of David. :mad:

You know, I usually don't run afoul of Godwin's Law, I must be mad.

7x57

obeygiant

09-04-2009, 5:00 PM

I also discovered that I had the wrong phone number for Senator Lowenthal. His phone should be (916) 651-4027 I updated the list on P.3 to reflect that.

IGOTDIRT4U

09-04-2009, 5:06 PM

Grr. OK, I want to see the text of the amendment to see if anyone sold us out in return for the "safety" of wearing the Star of David. :mad:

You know, I usually don't run afoul of Godwin's Law, I must be mad.

7x57

Me too. Or they just moved a comma somewhere just so they could let it ride until next week.

6172crew

09-04-2009, 5:08 PM

Cox sent me the same one, it looks like he really knows his stuff.

jdberger

09-04-2009, 5:11 PM

Made my calls - please post the amended text of 962 whenever possible

KylaGWolf

09-04-2009, 7:40 PM

OK AB962 is going to go to the senate floor. Time to light up the phone lines and mail letters. I don't have the fax numbers handy but I did come up with a list and how each one responded when I called. So here you go guys and gals make those calls. Get your friends and family to make those calls (those registered to vote).

California Senate List
39 members this term

Name Party District No. Sacramento Phone No. Local Phone No. Stance Notes

Leland Yee D 8 (916) 651-4008 (415) 577-7857 Undeclared Aides comment was this bill would not effect when you go to ranges since it only effects ammunition dealers not the citizen. This is after claiming they have no idea what this bill is

Total For 6
Total Against 9
Total Undeclared 21
No Answer 4

Dr Rockso

09-04-2009, 7:46 PM

Aides comment was this bill would not effect when you go to ranges since it only effects ammunition dealers not the citizen. This is after claiming they have no idea what this bill is

Ugh...

For those keeping score at home:
Democrats for - 4
Democrats against - 2

Republicans for - 2
Republicans against - 7

How might the governor's promise not to sign any legislation not directly relating to the budget affect AB 962?

HondaMasterTech

09-04-2009, 7:49 PM

Ugh...

For those keeping score at home:
Democrats for - 4
Democrats against - 2

Republicans for - 2
Republicans against - 7

How might the governor's promise not to sign any legislation not directly relating to the budget affect AB 962?

I fear he may not care and sign it anyway. If this becomes law I may show CA the tailpipe of my U-HAUL.

6172crew

09-04-2009, 7:49 PM

Im going to merge these, we have a thread already open.

HondaMasterTech

09-04-2009, 7:53 PM

The title is non descriptive to AB962

KylaGWolf

09-04-2009, 10:15 PM

Does Ed W. Know which law makers need some extra phone calls..or is it all of them still?

OK I called everyone of the senators and have a litsing on how they stand at this point. Most would not give me an answer either way. I posted the list with all the numbers it is somewhere on this thread.

KylaGWolf

09-04-2009, 10:22 PM

it is unlikely you will see the amends until Tuesday.

Oh I bet they already have it on their desks since most of them at least seemed to know what the bill is about or they have had that many calls today take your pick. I know I called everyone on the list and the last one Senator Yee's office response was classic. Something to the effect of not sure what this bill is. Then states it doesn't affect being able to go to the range to shoot. Only affects ammunition dealers. I asked what do you think ranges are? He goes exempt. I said no most ranges at least around where I live are ammunition/gun shops therefore not exempt. Oh then tried to tell me that the bill doesn't affect those in the same household..partially true but not quite.

I honestly think most of those that said they are undecided are probably not commenting in public afraid of the backlash. So quite frankly I say jam the phone lines. Pass the list to all you know friends and family. Have them pass it on. If they cannot take the time to call each one see if they can fax letters or do the old fashioned snail mail routine.

I have said it before and will say it again I think that we should start thinking serious recall campaigns for those that vote for this asinine bill.

RRangel

09-04-2009, 10:25 PM

OK I called everyone of the senators and have a litsing on how they stand at this point. Most would not give me an answer either way. I posted the list with all the numbers it is somewhere on this thread.

Rod Wright is usually good on gun issues.

Reloaderx2

09-05-2009, 1:33 PM

I'm going to be burning up the phone lines come Tuesday on Benoit-R and Cogdill-R for their support of this Bill.

curtisfong

09-05-2009, 3:24 PM

I'm going to be burning up the phone lines come Tuesday on Benoit-R and Cogdill-R for their support of this Bill.

Yup. Is unbelievable that there are R's out there willing to sell us out. What is up with those two? Does anybody know more? Are they RINOs?

1859sharps

09-05-2009, 5:02 PM

Yup. Is unbelievable that there are R's out there willing to sell us out. What is up with those two? Does anybody know more? Are they RINOs?

Please stop thinking of this as a republican vs democrat issue. it's not. If you continue to think this way we lose.

The R's aren't selling us out unless those particular R's said they would vote against gun control and now are.

protecting the 2nd amendment isn't a Republican "issue". Yes more Republicans support the 2nd then democrats, but soon as we make this a R vs D issue it's game over. The 2nd is gone.

we need to keep this what it is. civil/constitutional rights issue. Not a "conservative" or "republican" issue.

Hogxtz

09-05-2009, 5:43 PM

I have used the one click four times. I think calling is better soi I will try that. I am not convinced they even look or acnkowledge the one click crap, its probably just a nusiance to them

It looks fairly dramatic--I'm still reading it but it appears it has been scaled back, but would still require a thumbprint and ban mail order sales of handgun ammunition.

6172crew

09-05-2009, 7:18 PM

These guys are pretty sneaky, its a full time job to keep up with the crap they pull.

Nodda Duma

09-05-2009, 8:51 PM

If I am reading this correctly, the whole blurb about DOJ / AG / cops NOT being able to keep records of ammo sales and compile data was erased. That means they will know and will keep track of when and how much ammo you will purchase. Is that correct?

No online sales of ammo? How will this law hold up in court if it's passed?

-Jason

obeygiant

09-05-2009, 9:46 PM

Looks like the major changes were:

Enforcement was changed from July 1, 2010 February 1,2011
Removed the language dealing with what information they can keep and how it can be used
Changed the name of it from "PROTECTION Act of 2009: Providing Regulation and Oversight to End Community Terrorism in Our Neighborhoods." to the
"Anti-Gang Neighborhood Protection Act of 2009."
Removed 12061(b) the list of exemptions to this bill
Removed 12061 (B),(C) pertaining to employees of Ammunition Vendors
Removed 12061 (e) stating that the funds collected from licensing would be deposited in the Dealers' Record of Sale Special Account of the General Fund.
Removed 12062 the section describing how they would issue licenses to whom and what is required of them pertaining to denied licenses

Librarian

09-05-2009, 9:57 PM

Looks like the major changes were:

Enforcement was changed from July 1, 2010 February 1,2011
Removed the language dealing with what information they can keep and how it can be used
Changed the name of it from "PROTECTION Act of 2009: Providing Regulation and Oversight to End Community Terrorism in Our Neighborhoods." to the
"Anti-Gang Neighborhood Protection Act of 2009."
Removed 12061(b) the list of exemptions to this bill
Removed 12061 (B),(C) pertaining to employees of Ammunition Vendors
Removed 12061 (e) stating that the funds collected from licensing would be deposited in the Dealers' Record of Sale Special Account of the General Fund.
Removed 12062 the section describing how they would issue licenses to whom and what is required of them pertaining to denied licenses

Generally seem to want Sacramento-type info collected, and this whole thing applies only to ammunition vendors. There's no longer a separate license. FTF with ID is still required.

With no license there are no license fees, no new database, no new staff, very low new costs - and with the 7 month delay there's some time to figure out from where the small funding needed will come.

Fairly slick; cut out most of the obviously objectionable 'you are wasting money you do not have' stuff, and we're down to 'it will not do any good' -- which nobody seems to care about. :mad:

bulgron

09-06-2009, 12:10 PM

Fairly slick; cut out most of the obviously objectionable 'you are wasting money you do not have' stuff, and we're down to 'it will not do any good' -- which nobody seems to care about. :mad:

Yeah, but they're still going to lose that coming lawsuit on no internet mail orders. I wonder if they care about those legal costs.

curtisfong

09-06-2009, 12:19 PM

Yeah, but they're still going to lose that coming lawsuit on no internet mail orders. I wonder if they care about those legal costs.

Los Angeles has an internet mail order ban. No lawsuits. And its enough to prevent many many online sellers from shipping to a Los Angeles zip :(

IMO thats the biggest problem; convincing sellers that it is ok to ship to CA residents.

WileyWilly

09-06-2009, 12:39 PM

By banning mail order ammo sales they still lose the sales tax revenue which was estimated by them to be $1 million per year, if I remember correctly.
WW

Librarian

09-06-2009, 12:53 PM

By banning mail order ammo sales they still lose the sales tax revenue which was estimated by them to be $1 million per year, if I remember correctly.
WW
State wasn't getting that anyway - out of state sales are not required to collect it, unless the corp has physical facilities in state. Buyers are supposed to "voluntarily" send that tax money in.

Still unacceptable, but better than it was. The new start date gives us more time to challenge it.

Is that about right?

Swatter911

09-06-2009, 2:49 PM

Still don't like it after the changes. Emails sent to my legislators.

darkwater

09-06-2009, 3:00 PM

Sounds about right, which means I could now take my nephew to the range and let him shoot more than 50 rounds of ammo a month, but we'll be limited on our ammo selection and prices without the usual online vendors. If this passes, there could be yet another hit to the ammo supply, assuming we ever recover from the current shortage. Local shops in my area are still short of handgun and rifle ammo.

The bill as written, however, doesn't seem to mention anything about obtaining ammo via FTF while you're out of state, so perhaps going to the Big Show in Reno would still be an option?

Trench Broom

09-06-2009, 4:12 PM

More revenue lost for California and new regulatory hoops for the law-abiding to jump through - these people are absolutely devoid of any common sense. :mad: Instead of using water or fire retardant, they should air-drop these bastages over the station fire - all the hot air they give off would blow that fire out in an instant. :D

RRangel

09-06-2009, 4:38 PM

Los Angeles has an internet mail order ban. No lawsuits. And its enough to prevent many many online sellers from shipping to a Los Angeles zip :(

IMO thats the biggest problem; convincing sellers that it is ok to ship to CA residents.

You'll need to read it again as the ordinance does not mention mail order. The law is worded so that it regulates legal businesses selling within the city. The anti-gun city government is probably hoping that every liberal city in the land passes their own law, or that the state adopts a version of it, which will have the desired effect. Ammunition is a legal product that can be bought whenever and however outside the bounds of Los Angeles. I'm not a lawyer, but there is also state preemption when it comes to bans which may be applicable if they were to try it.

Sons of Liberty

09-06-2009, 10:47 PM

OK AB962 is going to go to the senate floor. Time to light up the phone lines and mail letters. I don't have the fax numbers handy but I did come up with a list and how each one responded when I called. So here you go guys and gals make those calls. Get your friends and family to make those calls (those registered to vote).

California Senate List
39 members this term

Name Party District No. Sacramento Phone No. Local Phone No. Stance Notes

Leland Yee D 8 (916) 651-4008 (415) 577-7857 Undeclared Aides comment was this bill would not effect when you go to ranges since it only effects ammunition dealers not the citizen. This is after claiming they have no idea what this bill is

Total For 6
Total Against 9
Total Undeclared 21
No Answer 4

I noticed my state senator, Bob Dutton, is a "No Answer". I got a letter back from him that was pretty generic and doesn't specifically mention the bill but stated,

"I also oppose further restrictions being placed on law-abiding citizens who have every right to own a firearm. You can rest assured that I will continue to uphold these values as legislation comes before me on the Senate Floor."

I take it that he is an "Oppose".

obeygiant

09-07-2009, 12:45 AM

Current Senator response tally can be found here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3027855&postcount=2213)

Librarian

09-07-2009, 11:02 AM

I'm not a lawyer, but there is also state preemption when it comes to bans which may be applicable if they were to try it.

State pre-emption is really very narrow: Government Code 53071. It is the intention of the Legislature to occupy the whole
field of regulation of the registration or licensing
of commercially manufactured firearms as encompassed by
the provisions of the Penal Code, and such provisions shall be
exclusive of all local regulations, relating to registration or
licensing of commercially manufactured firearms, by any
political subdivision as defined in Section 1721 of the Labor
Code.
Contrast that with the next section: CAL. GOV. CODE § 53071.5 : California Code - Section 53071.5

By the enforcement of this section, the Legislature occupies the whole field of regulation of the manufacture, sale, or possession of imitation firearms, as defined in Section 12550 of the Penal Code, and that section shall preempt and be exclusive of all regulations relating to the manufacture, sale, or possession of imitation firearms, including regulations governing the manufacture, sale, or possession of BB devices and air rifles described in subdivision (g) of Section 12001 of the Penal Code.In the second, I think you see what you get when the Legislature really wants to run something itself.

Still unacceptable, but better than it was. The new start date gives us more time to challenge it.

Is that about right?

It looks like there is an exception for C&R + COE in 12318 (c)(6).

12318. (a) Commencing July 1, 2010 February 1, 2011 , the delivery or transfer of ownership of
handgun ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face transaction with
the deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide evidence of
identity from the purchaser or other transferee. A violation of this
section is a misdemeanor.

(c) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to or affect the deliveries,
transfers, or sales of, handgun ammunition to any of the following:

(6) Persons licensed as collectors of firearms pursuant to Chapter
44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States
Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto whose licensed
premises are within this state who has a current certificate of
eligibility issued to him or her by the Department of Justice
pursuant to Section 12071.

curtisfong

09-07-2009, 11:53 AM

The law is worded so that it regulates legal businesses selling within the city. ...there is also state preemption when it comes to bans which may be applicable if they were to try it.

I understand, but the problem is that ammunition vendors don't care! They see us passing these crazy laws and they give up. They figure better safe than sorry, and simply say "we won't ship to you". THATS why we need to get rid of AB962, regardless of federal preemption and/or what it says about mail order.

I had posted a list of the numbers for all the senate members and their stance as of Friday.

KylaGWolf

09-08-2009, 10:18 AM

I know that Kehoe voted for this in the finance committee so she is for it. Yees office is pretty much for it too. I only got a total of six I oppose this bill. I am figuring the unknowns that are democrats are more than likely going to vote for this bill unless there is enough of an outcry from the public.

obeygiant

09-08-2009, 10:34 AM

I had posted a list of the numbers for all the senate members and their stance as of Friday.

I took your list,mine ,some observations by Librarian on past votes, and some updated info from other CGN members and compiled it into an updated list in this post:

Based on phonecalls by KylaGWolf , myself and observations by Librarian this is where we stand so far.

no big deal but IIRC i think Senator Price was omitted on your earlier post which prompted me to check mine and update the list.

KylaGWolf

09-08-2009, 10:56 AM

Lets hope there are more against than for....because this bill needs to get shot down in flames yet again.

woodsman

09-08-2009, 11:13 AM

They are such cowards when they say unknown or no position.

Then they vote like thieves in the night.

Ike Arumba

09-08-2009, 4:16 PM

OK AB962 is going to go to the senate floor. Time to light up the phone lines and mail letters. ...
Name Party District No. Sacramento Phone No. Local Phone No. Stance Notes

S. Joseph Simitian D 11 (916) 651-4011 (650) 688-63847 Undeclared

There's a typo in Joe Simitian's second number. It is (650) 688-6384. A couple of weeks ago, I sent him an email giving my own, personalized reasons I wanted him to help kill AB962. He never replied. Today, I called his office and told the receptionist I wanted him to vote no on 962. She replied, "OK, thank you for your call" and hung up. I really think he is against us, but I had to let him know how I feel anyway.

Legasat

09-08-2009, 5:09 PM

Emails and faxes sent to ALL Senators!

Dark Paladin

09-08-2009, 6:19 PM

Emailed all senators. Now to work on faxes. . .

6172crew

09-08-2009, 9:13 PM

My thanks to everyone who had emailed and or called, it's what it takes to kill these bills so our legal guys don't have waste time with them.